The variation of people's opinions in accordance to their indicated interest in American politics. Opinions on those involved with big business (nes$bigbiz) Min: 0 1st quartile: 40 Median: 50 Mean: 55.27 3rd Quartile: 70 Max: 100 NA’s: 259
Standard deviation: 22.58325
Seeing as the mean is 55.27, one can assume by the standard deviation of 22.58 that the data rests relatively close to the mean. This is also expressed by the box plot below. In layman's terms, one could say that people's opinions are mild at best. There are no "extreme" opinions - just an acknowledgement of the existence of big business in everyday life in the United States. If one were to further analyze the data, one could speculate that American attitudes towards politics and money in general are blasé.(Well, not quite--there are opinions of 0 and opinions of 100! Pretty extreme, right? Also, the speculation to attitudes toward "politics and money in general" is way too grand for just looking at public opinion toward the distribution of opinions toward just "big business"--but you can think about how you might piece together more evidence to see if that more general claim is true!) .
Opinions on people on welfare (nes$welfareppl) Min: 0 1st quartile: 40 Median: 50 Mean: 56.73 3rd quartile: 70 Max: 100 NA’s: 276
Standard deviation: 21.43782
Much like with big business, American society lacks enthusiasm when it comes to forming opinions in regards to people on welfare. Both the median and the mean are rather close to 50. However, if one were to nitpick, the mean in this case is slightly higher - indicating that opinions lean more towards the negative side, if they were to lean at all. This is also indicated in the box plot below. (Just because the mean is in the middle doesn't mean people lack enthusiasm about the issue! There are lots of people with extreme views on this! They are just balanced out...)
Summary of interests in politics: Mostof the time - 276 Some of the time - 403 Only now & then - 253 Hardly at all - 109 NA's - 1281
The summary of the interest in politics indicates that out of 2,322 people, 932 of them have at least a slight interest in politics - that's 40%. So whilst forty percent of those surveyed indicate a relative interest in politics, the graphs and data on two extremely different groups - big business and welfare recipients, prove that to be false.(The graphs on big business and welfare recipients don't prove anything about interest in politics, if you think about it... In fact, you should look at how people who are uninterested in politics feel about big business and welfare recipients! )
Correlation between big business/welfare: 0.2249546
Seeing as the correlation between these two variables is relatively low, one can safely assume that welfare recipients and big business employees/employers hold next to nothing in common - minus the relatively nonexistent opinions of the public on both. Again, you can't say opinions are nonexistent. People HAVE opinions, as you can see, by the very fact that they give answers on these questions, right? Finally, remember that these variables don't describe welfare recipients and business employers objectively, they only capture people's attitudes toward them. Very different.)
How people feel about people involved in big business compared to how they feel about citizens who need welfare. This graph shows that there are strong similarities in attitude, but that attitudes towards people on welfare tend to stretch to more extremes. However, neither has an extremely strong "lean" either way. The interest shown in politics by American citizens is at a 'record' low and despite the summary of interests being at forty percent, close to no strong opinions have been formed.
Everything here is great except that you're just way overshooting the mark with the kinds of conclusions you want to draw from the data! You're generating statistics and looking at graphs and then you're just claiming as much as you can dream up about the variables! I really really really like that your mind is going toward theoretically and empirically interesting hypotheses, but you can just claim them based on very limited analyses! Almost all of your descriptions of the data are actually provocative hypotheses that can be tested! Only problem is that you don't know how to yet. So you're doing great but your challenge moving forward is just going to be limiting your claims to what the data actually justify!
Opinions on those involved with big business (nes$bigbiz)
Min: 0
1st quartile: 40
Median: 50
Mean: 55.27
3rd Quartile: 70
Max: 100
NA’s: 259
Standard deviation: 22.58325
Seeing as the mean is 55.27, one can assume by the standard deviation of 22.58 that the data rests relatively close to the mean. This is also expressed by the box plot below. In layman's terms, one could say that people's opinions are mild at best. There are no "extreme" opinions - just an acknowledgement of the existence of big business in everyday life in the United States. If one were to further analyze the data, one could speculate that American attitudes towards politics and money in general are blasé.(Well, not quite--there are opinions of 0 and opinions of 100! Pretty extreme, right? Also, the speculation to attitudes toward "politics and money in general" is way too grand for just looking at public opinion toward the distribution of opinions toward just "big business"--but you can think about how you might piece together more evidence to see if that more general claim is true!)
.
Opinions on people on welfare (nes$welfareppl)
Min: 0
1st quartile: 40
Median: 50
Mean: 56.73
3rd quartile: 70
Max: 100
NA’s: 276
Standard deviation: 21.43782
Much like with big business, American society lacks enthusiasm when it comes to forming opinions in regards to people on welfare. Both the median and the mean are rather close to 50. However, if one were to nitpick, the mean in this case is slightly higher - indicating that opinions lean more towards the negative side, if they were to lean at all. This is also indicated in the box plot below.
(Just because the mean is in the middle doesn't mean people lack enthusiasm about the issue! There are lots of people with extreme views on this! They are just balanced out...)
Summary of interests in politics:
Most of the time - 276
Some of the time - 403
Only now & then - 253
Hardly at all - 109
NA's - 1281
The summary of the interest in politics indicates that out of 2,322 people, 932 of them have at least a slight interest in politics - that's 40%. So whilst forty percent of those surveyed indicate a relative interest in politics, the graphs and data on two extremely different groups - big business and welfare recipients, prove that to be false. (The graphs on big business and welfare recipients don't prove anything about interest in politics, if you think about it... In fact, you should look at how people who are uninterested in politics feel about big business and welfare recipients! )
Correlation between big business/welfare: 0.2249546
Seeing as the correlation between these two variables is relatively low, one can safely assume that welfare recipients and big business employees/employers hold next to nothing in common - minus the relatively nonexistent opinions of the public on both.
Again, you can't say opinions are nonexistent. People HAVE opinions, as you can see, by the very fact that they give answers on these questions, right? Finally, remember that these variables don't describe welfare recipients and business employers objectively, they only capture people's attitudes toward them. Very different.)
How people feel about people involved in big business compared to how they feel about citizens who need welfare. This graph shows that there are strong similarities in attitude, but that attitudes towards people on welfare tend to stretch to more extremes. However, neither has an extremely strong "lean" either way. The interest shown in politics by American citizens is at a 'record' low and despite the summary of interests being at forty percent, close to no strong opinions have been formed.
Everything here is great except that you're just way overshooting the mark with the kinds of conclusions you want to draw from the data! You're generating statistics and looking at graphs and then you're just claiming as much as you can dream up about the variables! I really really really like that your mind is going toward theoretically and empirically interesting hypotheses, but you can just claim them based on very limited analyses! Almost all of your descriptions of the data are actually provocative hypotheses that can be tested! Only problem is that you don't know how to yet. So you're doing great but your challenge moving forward is just going to be limiting your claims to what the data actually justify!
R CODE